PDA

View Full Version : what paper do you read and why ?



stewart38
14th-October-2005, 03:53 PM
Ok im coming 'out'

I’ve been a Daily Mail reader since the end of the ‘Today’ newspaper, early 90s?

The recent articles

“Fire officer wants a sticker of the English flag taken of the back of a fire engine” and the page given to that

The .."I’ve had 7 kids and been a surrogate for 5 more” and the page given to that

We have had the St Georges flag tie pin in prison saga and the page given to that

The latest is "Police told me off for saying crash motorist was fat” and a page for that

All of these with that bloody title "Political correctness gone mad"

30,000 criminals to be freed early

Cant see anything in todays paper about the Earthquake

Now even I can see some kind of theme here

I’m seriously considering changing my newspapers and that’s going to harder then changing banks or house!!

Any suggestions, don’t think id want to jump to the Times or back to the Sun and never liked the Daily Express

What do other people read and why ?

El Salsero Gringo
14th-October-2005, 03:58 PM
I don't think the Times is such a great leap; it comes from the same publisher as The Sun, and there's usually a picture of a pretty girl on page 3, or 5 or thereabouts, except she keeps her clothes on.

Piglet
14th-October-2005, 03:58 PM
I read my local Aberdeen evening newspaper The Evening Express and seldom buy any of the nationals these days -even on a Sunday. I find I don't have the time to catch up on the news in depth that much! Although I have seen me being tempted if there are any free CDs being given away...:whistle:

So sorry Stewart I'm not much help for you I'm afraid.

LMC
14th-October-2005, 04:04 PM
The Metro comic - because it's there (free pickup from station). Lasts me for 10 minutes - 5-6 of that are the cartoons and puzzles. Unfortunately, Metro is part of the Daily Mail Group :sad:

Otherwise I don't buy a paper but keep up with their websites - mainly Guardian, Times and BBC News. I particularly like the Guardian Society section, although sometimes that truly is political correctness experiencing mental health difficulties. The Independent and Telegraph websites can be interesting because they are not so mainstream. I like looking at the same "news" from different angles - although the "spin" is sometimes scary and I don't know what to think :sick:

If I bought an actual paper it would probably be the Guardian - no big surprise there since I'm a left-wing liberal work-for-a-charity type. If you're switching from the Mail, then that might be going a bit too far - maybe worth looking at the Independent?

David Bailey
14th-October-2005, 04:11 PM
Now even I can see some kind of theme here
:rofl: :clap:

I use the BBC news site for daily stuff and the Economist for in-depth information (it's the best-written weekly news magazine in the country, in my view).

If you still want a daily newspaper, The Sun is better-written than the Mail - plus, it has better pictures :)

doc martin
14th-October-2005, 04:16 PM
Why bother with a newspaper at all? There are much better options over the internet these days. The printed papers cover many aspects of the news, even if they don't cover what would traditionally be considered news, as in your examples.

If you know what sort of thing you are interested in why not try a news portal such as http://www.newsnow.co.uk/?

You can set up feeds based on what you would like to hear about.

The only time I read a print paper these days is when I am going on the train when I pick up a metro.

the Economist for in-depth information (it's the best-written weekly news magazine in the country, in my view).
:yeah:
I used to subscribe to the Economist, but there is just too much stuff in it.... I seemed to take all week to read it:o

TiggsTours
14th-October-2005, 04:38 PM
The Metro, its free, so I don't really care too much if I don't get time to finish it, which I invariable don't.

Lynn
14th-October-2005, 05:35 PM
Belfast Telegraph, on Friday's, for the job section. (which reminds me, better pop out to the shop and get it.)

Not much help either.

Chicklet
14th-October-2005, 06:20 PM
Herald for proper news, crossword (both of them), daily Soduko fix :blush: and other people's houses on Wed.:blush: :blush:
Times on Sat and Sun for news, a TV guide and colour supps so I know where to get men's silk g-strings, garden overshoes and fab holiday tours.

Minnie M
14th-October-2005, 06:23 PM
I’ve been a Daily Mail reader since the end of the ‘Today’ newspaper, early 90s?

:yeah: and it has the best TV guide on Saturday:clap:

under par
14th-October-2005, 07:54 PM
The Daily Telegraph for me. excellent crossword puzzle on back page and the BEST fantasy football game going.

I don't get it more than once or twice a week and have never got close to finishing the crossword but enjoy trying.:flower:

ElaineB
14th-October-2005, 08:38 PM
Due to lack of time, I very rarely get to read a paper, although I do try to get the Western Daily Press on a Saturday. Otherwise on holiday, I like to buy the papers that are local to were I am staying - I am a sucker for the one man and his dog stories! :D

Catch up with the news on the radio/television and the dear old BBC website - oh and here of course! :wink:


Elaine

David Bailey
14th-October-2005, 11:17 PM
Why bother with a newspaper at all? There are much better options over the internet these days.
Paper is still the best way to read in-depth information (says the man who advocated the Sun :whistle: )


You can set up feeds based on what you would like to hear about.
Or, putting it another way, reinforce your own biases.

I prefer a paper with a bit of independence, that makes me think. I can get news from the BBC - for opinion and thought I go to a paper.

doc martin
15th-October-2005, 05:44 AM
Or, putting it another way, reinforce your own biases.
If you set it up to trawl news from everywhere about a subject, you should get the widest possible range of views. THEN you can select the bits that reinforce your biases. :whistle:

I prefer a paper with a bit of independence, that makes me think. I can get news from the BBC - for opinion and thought I go to a paper.
So you're back to the Economist. IMO the least biased news coverage, or at least biased by it's economic viewpoint rather than political affiliations. It also gives you a longer perspective, not reading the news day by day as it happens, but reading more of an analysis and overview of the last weeks news.

Clive Long
15th-October-2005, 08:27 AM
I don't read a newspaper (regularly)

I don't have time.

Do I feel I should read a newspaper? Not sure.

Should I even keep up with "world events"? I feel I should but I can't tell you why. I know people who like to impress at dinner parties with their knowledge of events in countries I haven't even heard of. They are posturing and trying to create an impression they are informed and concerned.

I find it interesting (and I feel, for some reason, encouraging) that many of the respondants to this thread read local / regional papers .

I did vaguely think about reading The Economist - I'll go the the library (remember those?) and try a few back-issues.

There are a deluge of information sources and I'm not sure who I can "trust". Do I use a news source that just reflects and re-inforces my attitudes and prejudices rather than informs me? I don't know.

Which papers do I read if I am going on a train journey: Times, Independent.

I used to buy the Guardian but I feel I am being preached at when I read it.

I think the gutter tabloids: The Super Soaraway Sun and Mirror are rags that are efficient in exploiting very base attitudes in people. I believe The Mirror used to be a campaigning social justice paper in the 60's and 70's where John Pilger did great work. I find it deeply worrying that in their present incarnation they are the highest circulation "newspapers" in the UK. I believe this demonstrates I have little point of contact or communication with most of the people in this country.

I have occassionally dipped into the Mail and Express and I just find their view point xenophobic, smug and "unpleasant" on almost anything they write.

I have an irrational bias against the Telegraph. The name conjures up pictures of men my age, wearing tweed jackets, driving renovated British sports cars while they meet their family down the pub on a Sunday by the cricket green. Doesn't connect with any experience of Britain I have.

I subscribed to TimeOut (*) for 3 years and found it entertaining and the articles well written. That took up the time I had for any "journal" reading.

I feel I am not provided for by the news media - one could go on about filtering and viewpoint bias - but I never understood that stuff. Will newspapers or any news media always reflect the views, interests and prejudices of a few powerful people: Murdoch, Conrad Black, May-he-rot-in-hell-pension-thief Maxwell or powerful corporations like News International, Time Warner CNN and Fox?

So Stewart. Getting away from the Mail is a GOOD THING in my eyes. Maybe buy a couple of the Sunday papers (Times and Observer) (wouldn't The Economist be a bit narrow in it subject matter?) and work through them during the week to get the long view on events and online sources for the "up-to-the-minute" stuff.

A rather confused opinion, I'm afraid, Stewart.

Clive

(*) An events listing magazine for London, the majority of content reading like the telephone directory but with a few longer articles on "London Issues"

ducasi
15th-October-2005, 09:18 AM
I used to buy The Herald every day on my way to work, carry it there, carry it home, dump it on a table and throw it out at the end of the week. Occasionally I'd actually read it.

So I gave that up and started reading their web site in the morning before going to work... It's a shame it doesn't have the full contents though, and more than a day's navigable content. Oh, and no Saturday edition.

I'd be prepared to pay for a complete on-line version, with at least a week's back issues available to me.

Anyway, I read the Herald as it has local Glasgow and Scottish news, plus news from the rest of the world from a Scottish perspective. (Too many other news media (especially the BBC) seem to forget that what's going on in England may have zero relevance to Scotland and the other nations of the UK.) And it doesn't (normally) treat me like an idiot who has to be told what to think.

I also pick up a copy of the Metro most days to read its letters and cartoon/puzzle page. Occasionally I'll even read its news. :wink:

Heather
15th-October-2005, 10:09 AM
I don't buy or read newspapers but if there were to be an item of personal interest in the local press ( eg my class photo visiting / doing something ) I might splash out and buy a copy of The Courier or the Evening Telegraph.
I make a point of watching the news on TV in the evening. BBC news and Grampian news on ITV.
I like to encourage my class of 9/10 year olds to listen/ watch/ read the news as we regularly do an 'In the News' report every week. I usually go on the BBC website and print off interesting/ relevant news articles for them.
Rather than read a pile of biased crap I tend to watch programmes like Newsnight, Sunday AM, The Politics Show,Panorama and Question Time and This Week ( which you could argue are probably biased but I do like agood shout at the telly!!:rofl: )

:hug: :kiss:
Heather,
XX

doc martin
15th-October-2005, 10:25 AM
I don't read a newspaper (regularly)

I don't have time.
I'm not surprised, what with writing such long, well thought out posts for this forum, I'm surprised you have time for dancing. :D


Do I feel I should read a newspaper? Not sure.

Should I even keep up with "world events"? I feel I should but I can't tell you why. I know people who like to impress at dinner parties with their knowledge of events in countries I haven't even heard of. They are posturing and trying to create an impression they are informed and concerned.
If you feel you should, then it is probably your curiosity about the world nagging you. And if other people have less lofty reasons for reading a newspaper that shouldn't influence you; you read what you want for the reasons that matter to you.

I did vaguely think about reading The Economist - I'll go the the library (remember those?) and try a few back-issues.

...<stuff about other papers>...

...(wouldn't The Economist be a bit narrow in it subject matter?)
Everything you say makes me think 'Economist reader'. Not that I'm trying to sell it or anything, just that your opinions of the other papers chime with my own, and the Economist is the paper that I have felt most at home with.

If you read the Economist you won't know anything about what is going on in Footballers Wives and page 3 is usually decidedly uninteresting, but they do cover the major world events in more depth than any other paper. And I emphasise world because there is less about the UK than any other paper (IMO). As you said, try it from the library and you might enjoy it, you might not but you've lost nothing apart from a little time to write more posts on the forum.

Martin
15th-October-2005, 06:27 PM
From a very young age I realised that "news" meant 'Bad News' as that is what sells.

So I do not bother.

I will not read papers or listen to the news on tele.

I am involved in an investment club and often people pick out news items (paper or tele) and ask the author where the sourse came from. Always sadly lacking.

WittyBird
16th-October-2005, 02:31 AM
I buy the local papers every week purely for the recruitment pages - R&D and any excuse to make sales calls really. But on a personal note I dont get the time occassionally I will buy the Sun purely for entertainment value and the horoscopes or on a weekend if i can get my sorry ass out of bed it will be the News of the world but its just for entertainment and comedy value more than anything else! Last time I bought a paper to read it was the Sunday Mail and I won £10k but thats another story :rofl:

Baruch
16th-October-2005, 04:41 PM
I read the Times most weekdays. I don't tend to buy any papers on the weekends though. Sometimes I'll buy the Western Mail if I want a more local slant on the news for a change, and sometimes my wife buys the Daily Mail, but the Times is my mainstay. It's a good way to get an in-depth, intelligent report on UK and world events, although I must confess that its anglocentric bias annoys me at times.

Lynn
16th-October-2005, 04:58 PM
Rather than read a pile of biased crap I tend to watch programmes like Newsnight, Sunday AM, The Politics Show,Panorama and Question Time and This Week ( which you could argue are probably biased but I do like agood shout at the telly!!:rofl: )You want to try keeping up with politics here! I also tend to opt for TV - local breakfast news etc. And programmes like Hearts and Minds for a dip into local politics - (but I prefer The Folks on the Hill :rofl: ) - sorry programmes almost everyone else on here have probably never seen.

On world issues I admit to being somewhat biased to having more interest in places I have visited/have friends from as I have that little bit more understanding of the situation. (And there are big issues going on around the world that we simply don't hear about at all from either newspapers or TV anyway.) Perhaps we need some sort of filter to 'select' in this way - otherwise we could feel completely overwhelmed by the suffering in the world - though maybe that would prompt us more to do something...

jockey
16th-October-2005, 11:15 PM
Racing Post.
Guardian.
Times.
Reasons - I love horseracing (re RP) and quality writing (the other 2). Much of the journalism in the Post is quite poor but the analysis is often good. The Times I had always regarded as too right wing for me but I read it for a period and was impressed with it (and the surprising amount of humour in it).
Deplore tabloids...sensationalist, shallow, misrepresentative..need I go on?
I wonder about society (and election results) when I see the size of their readership.
Anyone interested in the sociology of the "the news" should read "Bad News" written by the Glasgow Media Group and its follow up "More Bad News".:yeah:

jivecat
16th-October-2005, 11:49 PM
I read the Saturday Guardian, in strict order.
TV guide for what's going to happen in Corrie, then the News section, then the Fashion/Garden/Cooking bit. Travel/money/culture comes a lot later, if I get round to it.

I only read the Mail/Express if I want to feel thoroughly grumpy, irritated and have my blood pressure raised by a trillion points.

I very rarely read the Leicester Mercury but when I do I enjoy looking out to see if anyone I know gets mentioned because big cities can be surprisingly parochial.

stewart38
17th-October-2005, 10:55 AM
Due to lack of time, I very rarely get to read a paper, although I do try to get the Western Daily Press on a Saturday. Otherwise on holiday, I like to buy the papers that are local to were I am staying - I am a sucker for the one man and his dog stories! :D

Catch up with the news on the radio/television and the dear old BBC website - oh and here of course! :wink:


Elaine

I read paper on tube and train and usually no where else ! wouldnt want people to think I read the Daily Mail at night ,like at home

Was going to get Independent today but bottled it at last moment :sad:

Sad thing is I didnt think the cartoons were particulary good in the Daily Mail today :grin:

jivecat
17th-October-2005, 11:07 AM
Was going to get Independent today but bottled it at last moment :sad:



Go for it, Stewart38, you have nothing to lose but your prejudices!

Will
17th-October-2005, 11:38 AM
I dont' buy newspapers that much, but if I do it's usually the Daily Mail, or occassionally The Telegraph.

DavidB
17th-October-2005, 11:58 AM
I dont' buy newspapers that much, but if I do it's usually the Daily Mail, or occassionally The Telegraph.You only buy newspapers when they come wrapped around your fish and chips. There is more to a broadsheet than just a large portion!

Will
17th-October-2005, 01:04 PM
You only buy newspapers when they come wrapped around your fish and chips. There is more to a broadsheet than just a large portion!
It's amazing! If you go to the Sports section and put your piece of Cod over the big banner headline, and then strategically place chips on certain parts of the opponents score, you can make it look like Leeds Utd won a game of football. :really:

stewart38
19th-October-2005, 10:45 AM
Read the Independent today

Its too dry although interesting article about China. Ink comes of in your hands ?

The metro had the best article

The last living veteran of World War 1 had dies aged 106, apparently only 5 left now in the uk !!

El Salsero Gringo
19th-October-2005, 11:12 AM
Read the Independent today

Its too dry although interesting article about China. Ink comes of in your hands ?

The metro had the best article

The last living veteran of World War 1 had dies aged 106, apparently only 5 left now in the uk !!I always find the Independent dull dull dull. But I have to ask - if the last living vet from WW1 has died, how can there be five left in the UK?

stewart38
19th-October-2005, 11:36 AM
I always find the Independent dull dull dull. But I have to ask - if the last living vet from WW1 has died, how can there be five left in the UK?


Correction from Australia . William Evan Allan . only 14 when he joined the Royal Australian Navy in 1914, Served on HMAS crusier until 1918 escorting troop ships. so no more people living in Australia who served in the 1st world war

Apparently only 5 left in uk now

In 1998 Daily Mail identified over a 100 still living in uk alone :sad:

Im remember in the 1970s they use to split out 1st and 2nd world war vetrans on remembrance day :sad:

we all getting older i guess

stewart38
19th-October-2005, 11:42 AM
Interetsing but as 2002 , out if date ,for USA


America's Wars: U.S. Casualties and Veterans
American Revolution (1775–1783)
Total servicemembers 217,000
Battle deaths 4,435
Nonmortal woundings 6,188
War of 1812 (1812–1815)
Total servicemembers 286,730
Battle deaths 2,260
Nonmortal woundings 4,505
Indian Wars (approx. 1817–1898)
Total servicemembers 106,0001
Battle deaths 1,0001
Mexican War (1846–1848)
Total servicemembers 78,718
Battle deaths 1,733
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 11,550
Nonmortal woundings 4,152
Civil War (1861–1865)
Total servicemembers (Union) 2,213,363
Battle deaths (Union) 140,414
Other deaths in service (nontheater) (Union) 224,097
Nonmortal woundings (Union) 281,881
Total servicemembers (Conf.) 1,050,000
Battle deaths (Conf.) 74,524
Other deaths in service (nontheater) (Conf.) 59,2972
Nonmortal woundings (Conf.) unknown
Spanish-American War (1898–1902)
Total servicemembers 306,760
Battle deaths 385
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 2,061
Nonmortal woundings 1,662
World War I (1917–1918)3
Total servicemembers 4,734,991
Battle deaths 53,402
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 63,114
Nonmortal woundings 204,002
Living veterans fewer than 500
World War II (1940–1945)3
Total servicemembers 16,112,566
Battle deaths 291,557
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 113,842
Nonmortal woundings 671,846
Living veterans 4,762,0001
Korean War (1950–1953)
Total servicemembers 5,720,000
Serving in-theater 1,789,000
Battle deaths 33,741
Other deaths in service (theater) 2,827
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 17,730
Nonmortal woundings 103,284
Living veterans 3,734,0001
Vietnam War (1964–1975)
Total servicemembers 8,744,000
Serving in-theater 3,403,000
Battle deaths 47,410
Other deaths in service (theater) 10,789
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 32,000
Nonmortal woundings 153,303
Living veterans 8,295,0001
Gulf War (1990–1991)
Total servicemembers 2,225,000
Serving in-theater 665,476
Battle deaths 147
Other deaths in service (theater) 382
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 1,565
Nonmortal woundings 467
Living veterans 1,852,0001
America's Wars Total
Military service during war 42,348,460
Battle deaths 651,008
Other deaths in service (theater) 13,998
Other deaths in service (nontheater) 525,256
Nonmortal woundings 1,431,290
Living war veterans 17,578,5004
Living veterans 25,038,459

1. Veterans Administration estimate as of Sept. 30, 2002.
2. Estimated figure. Does not include 26,000–31,000 who died in Union prisons.
3. Years of U.S. involvement in war.
4. Approximately 1,065,000 veterans had service in multiple conflicts. They are counted under each conflict, but only once in the total.
Source: Department of Defense and Veterans Administration.

stewart38
19th-October-2005, 11:50 AM
More useful and going of thread

If someone can explain to me how a widow dies in 1906 please do, even if they were married aged 5 wouldnt make sense ?

or does it if she married a service men say aged 18 in 1832 , that person could have been 67 in 1832 (ie he was 18 when war ended in 1783)

So my gran mother was alive (by 6 months) when a widow of the American revolution was alive , you learn somthing every day !


Last Living Veterans of America's Wars
American Revolution (1775–1783)
Last veteran, Daniel F. Bakeman, died 4/5/1869, age 109
Last widow, Catherine S. Damon, died 11/11/1906, age 92
Last dependent, Phoebe M. Palmeter, died 4/25/1911, age 90
War of 1812 (1812–1815)
Last veteran, Hiram Cronk, died 5/13/1905, age 105
Last widow, Carolina King, died 6/28/1936, age unknown
Last dependent, Esther A. H. Morgan, died 3/12/1946, age 89
Indian Wars (c. 1861–1898)
Last veteran, Fredrak Fraske, died 6/18/1973, age 101
Mexican War (1846–1848)
Last veteran, Owen Thomas Edgar, died 9/3/1929, age 98
Last widow, Lena James Theobald, died 6/20/1963, age 89
Last dependent, Jesse G. Bivens, died 11/1/1962, age 94
Civil War (1861–1865)
Last Union veteran, Albert Woolson, died 8/2/1956, age 109
Last Confederate veteran, John Salling*, died 3/16/1958, age 112
Spanish-American War (1898)
Last veteran, Nathan E. Cook, died 9/10/1992, age 106

jivecat
19th-October-2005, 12:08 PM
Interetsing but as 2002 , out if date ,for USA


America's Wars: U.S. Casualties and Veterans
American Revolution (1775–1783)
Total servicemembers 217,000
Battle deaths 4,435ZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZately 1,065,000 veterans had service in multiple conflicts. They are counted under each conflict, but only once in the total.
Source: Department of Defense and Veterans Administration.

(Blinks, yawns, stretches) Why, Stewart38, that was just fascinating, honey. You guys are so clever to know so much about war and that. (Fluffy eyelash smiley)

stewart38
19th-October-2005, 12:28 PM
(Blinks, yawns, stretches) Why, Stewart38, that was just fascinating, honey. You guys are so clever to know so much about war and that. (Fluffy eyelash smiley)

I think it is :grin: and i still have great s** :grin:

Runs to corner wearing pink fluffy slippers with a :blush: on and picks up a packet of pringles and says who wants some to those sat on the sofa (nope thats the wrong thread) :waycool:

Dreadful Scathe
19th-October-2005, 05:01 PM
Did you know - one member of the Royal Family was alive in 3 seperate centuries! Shes dead now though. Thats one statistic that will never be beaten i imagine :)

interesting history fact :)

stewart38
19th-October-2005, 05:09 PM
Did you know - one member of the Royal Family was alive in 3 seperate centuries! Shes dead now though. Thats one statistic that will never be beaten i imagine :)

interesting history fact :)

queen mother was born 1900 so not her ?

i give up !!

Katie
19th-October-2005, 05:23 PM
Sadly, I have got out of the habit of reading a daily newspaper and I do feel a bit guilty for it. If I were in the habit, I would read The Daily Telegraph purely because I have got used to the layout (and I enjoy reading Boris Johnson) and if i'm brave, The Financial Times, occasionally.

When I am feeling really lazy, then the first page in the Spectator is useful for a lowdown of the news in past week in the UK and worldwide. When i'm in on a friday night then I would watch 'Have I got news for you', which always makes me laugh, although in recent times It has gone downhill....:sad:

Dreadful Scathe
19th-October-2005, 06:27 PM
queen mother was born 1900 so not her ?

i give up !!

yes it is her - 1901 was the start of the 20th century NOT 1900 - she just makes it :)

Baruch
19th-October-2005, 09:41 PM
yes it is her - 1901 was the start of the 20th century NOT 1900 - she just makes it :)
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah:

Which makes it laughable that everyone was so hyped up about "the millennium" on 1st January 2000. Firstly, the new millennium started on 1st January 2001, and secondly, I wonder how many people actually realised that a millennium is a thousand years, not one night of partying?

Stuart
19th-October-2005, 10:16 PM
I used to buy a paper during the week, but I found that I didn't really have time to read it. I usually have a look at the BBC and Guardian websites though.

At the weekends though I buy the Independent and the Independent on Sunday because to my view they don't seem as biased as some of the other papers.

Dreadful Scathe
20th-October-2005, 09:45 AM
Which makes it laughable that everyone was so hyped up about "the millennium" on 1st January 2000. Firstly, the new millennium started on 1st January 2001, and secondly, I wonder how many people actually realised that a millennium is a thousand years, not one night of partying?

Indeed some people have trouble with a Century being 100 years too its not rocket science. I like these quotes:


We have uniformly rejected all letters and declined all discussion upon the question of when the present century ends, as it is one of the most absurd that can engage the public attention, and we are astonished to find it has been the subject of so much dispute, since it appears plain. The present century will not terminate till January 1, 1801, unless it can be made out that 99 are 100... It is a silly, childish discussion, and only exposes the want of brains of those who maintain a contrary opinion to that we have stated.
--The London Times, 26 December 1799

"The Post is open to conviction. We are not bigoted or intolerant. If anyone will show us how a century can be completed with less than 100 years, and how nineteen centuries can be completed with less than 1900 years, and how the twentieth century can begin before the nineteenth century ends, we shall joyfully put ashes in our hair and hail him as a wizard."
--Washington Post, 28 December 1899


Strangely I dont have a similar recent quote for the 2000 nonsense - says a lot about the dumbing down of the media I suppose. :)

Dreadful Scathe
20th-October-2005, 05:03 PM
Mind you I suppose "Stupid People Shocker" would be so pass&#233; if it was the headline every single day :)

Baruch
20th-October-2005, 10:27 PM
Thankfully, there were some voices of reason in 2001: http://tinyurl.co.uk/rm9s

El Salsero Gringo
23rd-October-2005, 02:37 PM
a millennium is a thousand years, not one night of partying?A thousand years of partying? Where do I sign up?

stewart38
28th-October-2005, 11:19 AM
Read the Independent today

Its too dry although interesting article about China. Ink comes of in your hands ?

The metro had the best article

The last living veteran of World War 1 had dies aged 106, apparently only 5 left now in the uk !!


Built up the courage to try another

It was the Times today, not as 'dry' as the Independent and again with some very interesting articles

However with only 20 mins to 'read' it dont feel in time span you can do justice to it. Instead of dropping it in the bin I feel I want to take it home and read more. Not sure if this is good or bad. feel ive wasted 60p if i havent read more :sick:

I can do Metro (free london paper) in 5 mins
Evening standard in 10 mins (im not into Arts sections etc) nice property supplemment with Diary of an Esate agent.

The Times might be a first choice if I was in hospital and had nothing else to do ?

El Salsero Gringo
28th-October-2005, 11:29 AM
Try the Financial Times too (don't laugh). There's lots of financial and business stuff but the news reporting and features are good too.

Dreadful Scathe
12th-December-2005, 12:28 AM
The Times might be a first choice if I was in hospital and had nothing else to do ?

You're a "glass is half empty" kind of guy arent you :)